Mel Stride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has been doing in his constituency on this matter. I can inform him that for the week commencing 12 December, for example, there were 7,200 claims, which is a 177% increase compared with this time last year.

Mel Stride: Even one person in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman refers to is one too many. We are going to come forward very shortly with further measures on how we address those particular people, and at the time of the Budget on 15 March—which is very close now—the hon. Gentleman will probably learn more.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Lady should be aware that last Tuesday there was a jobs fair in her constituency. There were 59 exhibitors, and 900 customers attended the event. They provided fantastic feedback on the support and interventions given. If she did not attend that particular jobs fair, she might want to go to “March into manufacturing” on 21 March, an upcoming jobs fair in her patch.

Jeremy Quin: I can confirm that, following a media report the previous day, Sue Gray, formerly second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to the Cabinet Office, resigned from the civil service on Thursday 2 March. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. On Friday 3 March, a statement from the Opposition announced that the Labour party had offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition.
The House will recognise that this is an exceptional situation. It is unprecedented for a serving permanent secretary to resign to seek to take up a senior position working for the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will expect, the Cabinet Office is looking into the circumstances leading up to Sue Gray’s resignation in order to update the relevant civil service leadership and Ministers of the facts. Subsequent to that, I will update the House appropriately.
By way of background, to inform hon. Members, there are four pertinent sets of rules and guidance for civil servants relating to this issue. First, under the civil service code, every civil servant is expected to uphold the civil service’s core values, which include impartiality. The code states that civil servants must
“act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”.
Secondly, rules apply when very senior civil servants wish to leave the service. Permanent secretaries are subject to the business appointments process that, for most senior leavers, is administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. ACOBA provides advice to the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate decision maker in cases involving the most senior civil servants. Once the Prime Minister agrees the conditions and the appointment is taken up, ACOBA publishes its letter to the applicant on its website.
The business appointment rules form part of a civil servant’s contract of employment. The rules state that approval must be obtained prior to a job offer being announced. The Cabinet Office has not, as yet, been informed that the relevant notification to ACOBA has been made.
Thirdly, civil servants must follow guidance on the declaration and management of outside interests. They are required, on an ongoing basis, to declare and manage any outside interests that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, the directory of civil service guidance states:
“Contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the Opposition parties…should…be cleared with…Ministers.”
Having set out the relevant rules, I finish by saying that, regardless of the details of this specific situation, I understand why Members of this House and eminent  outside commentators have raised concerns. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service is constitutionally vital to the conduct of government. I am certain that all senior civil servants are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining impartiality. Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust, so it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the civil service.

Marcus Fysh: The House and the country should know that on 7 September 2019 I witnessed Sue Gray, then permanent secretary at the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland, discuss with a special adviser to the UK Cabinet Office how to exclude solutions other than high alignment with EU law and regulation from consideration by the Government in respect of Northern Ireland and the withdrawal agreement. A month later, the Government proposed the Northern Ireland protocol, which subjected Northern Ireland to EU law and regulation. Since then, Sue Gray has been the civil servant specifically responsible for advising on Union considerations in Government. It was reported this  week that Sue Gray was present at the briefing of Cabinet Ministers on the Prime Minister’s Windsor framework, which, among other things, appears to confirm and embed the application of EU law and regulation in Northern Ireland—

Marco Longhi: Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The Labour Party has offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the leader of the opposition.”
That statement was issued by the Labour party on Thursday 2 March 2023. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any reasonable person would call into question the impartiality of that person, as of 1 March and any day before?

Aaron Bell: In his response to the Sue Gray report on 25 May last year, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“I have been clear what leadership looks like... I have not broken any rules”.—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]
If he did not consult ACOBA before announcing this appointment, has he still not broken any rules?

Suella Braverman: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the inquiry into the horrendous attack on Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
I work closely with MI5. While its activity is necessarily discreet, the whole country should be profoundly grateful for the patriotism and courage of its staff. They work indefatigably every day to keep the British people safe. Since the start of 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots.
An Islamist suicide bomber murdered 22 people and injured more than 1,000, as well as inflicting incalculable psychological damage and misery. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our profound sorrow and extending our heartfelt condolences to everyone affected by this barbaric act. They were supposed to have a brilliant time and come home safely. What should have been a simple pleasure turned into a hellish nightmare. It is vital that we understand what happened and what lessons we need to learn, because we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of this outrage.
Volume 3 of the inquiry was published last Thursday. I would like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team, who have spent more than three years on it. Sir John finds that there was a failure by the Security Service to act swiftly enough, and that there were
“problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing”.
Following the publication of the report, the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing offered their profound apologies for not preventing the attack.
Sir John does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended for failing to identify that he was a risk, but he does find:
“More needs to be done to ensure that education providers share relevant information about students”.
Sir John concludes that the bomber
“should have been subject to a Prevent referral at some point in 2015 or 2016. However, it is very hard to say what would have happened if”
the bomber
“had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”
The police investigation into the attack, Operation Manteline, is praised.
Although Sir John cannot conclude whether the attack would have been prevented, he finds that there was a significant missed opportunity to take further investigative action that he judges might have led to information that could have prevented it. While this is welcome, and the Home Office will work at pace with both organisations to act on the chairman’s recommendations, we must not lose sight of the fact that responsibility for the attack lies with the bomber and his brother. These conclusions require careful consideration.
Since 2017, the Government have made a number of changes to how we deal with and seek to prevent terrorist attacks. We have given law enforcement and intelligence  agencies improved powers. We have strengthened the controls around access to explosives precursors. We have strengthened the management of terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders in prison and on licence. We have ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders in England, Wales and Scotland, and we have ensured that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the severity of their offending. We have strengthened the tools for monitoring dangerous people in the community.
We have invested heavily in counter-terrorism. We unveiled a new counter-terrorism operations centre in 2021 that brings together partners from counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other Government agencies. This will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. Last year’s integration of special branch into the national CT policing network will improve our response to the full range of national security threats, boost skills and ensure better communication between agencies and a more consistent and effective national response.
Work is under way to develop a new faith security training scheme to raise security awareness among faith communities and help them to mitigate threats. We continue to engage with faith organisations and security experts to develop the scheme. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) announced the continuation of the Jewish community protective security grant for 2022. In May, new funding was allocated to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.
In response to any terrorist attack affecting British nationals, in the UK or overseas, the Home Office’s victims of terrorism unit works to ensure that the right support is available to them. The unit is conducting an internal review to strengthen its work. I am overseeing a comprehensive review of the CONTEST strategy to combat terrorism. It follows on from the independent review of Prevent, led by William Shawcross, which assessed the programme’s effectiveness in preventing people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the review made clear, Prevent requires major reform, and I have accepted all its recommendations.
Prevent has underestimated the threat of Islamist extremism, which remains far the biggest threat that we face, and too often it has minimised the role of ideology in terrorism. It will focus on security, not on political correctness, and its first objective will be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. The Government have also developed a comprehensive system of support for the owners and operators of public places across the UK. It includes access to research-driven expertise through products delivered by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
However, we must go further. Martyn’s law, formerly known as the Protect Duty, will introduce proportionate new security requirements for certain public premises throughout the UK. They will be better prepared and ready to respond, and their staff will know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Martyn’s law will clarify who is responsible for security activity at the premises in scope, increasing accountability. We are also considering how an inspection function will oversee compliance, to provide appropriate advice, and, where necessary, to sanction.
Martyn Hett was one of those killed in Manchester. I am enormously grateful to his mother, Figen Murray, and the Martyn’s Law Campaign Team, as well as to Survivors Against Terror and all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims’ groups that have informed our work. I have always been humbled when I have met them and heard about their experiences.
The doctrines that underpin the way in which the emergency services respond to incidents have improved since the attack. Let me end by once again recognising the anguish, and the courage, of the loved ones of those who were killed or hurt on that dreadful night. It united the country in sorrow and in disgust. We will continue to work non-stop to prevent further such tragedies from being visited on others, and I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: On 22 May 2017, thousands of people, including children and their parents, went to watch a pop concert. Instead, they were faced with the most unimaginable horror, and 22 people lost their lives, including children, the youngest being just eight years old. Hundreds more were injured. Those families have endured the unimaginable. All our thoughts are with them today, and with the people of Manchester, who have stood and supported each other through the most difficult of times. I join the Home Secretary in thanking Sir John Saunders for his far-reaching inquiry, and for his vital work in seeking answers for the victims and their families.
The responsibility for this vile attack lies with the bomber and his brother, and with those who may have radicalised and enabled them, and we—all of us—condemn their actions in the strongest possible terms. It is right that the brother has been brought to justice. Rightly too, however, this report has looked at why it happened and at what might have prevented it, to seek the truth for families and their loved ones and to identify changes needed for the future. These are important and serious conclusions which are hard to hear: that there was, in Sir John’s words, a
“significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack”;
that there was a failure to act swiftly enough on information; that there were failures in the sharing of information; and that the bomber should have been referred to the Prevent programme in 2015 or 2016, although Sir John says it is unclear whether that would have led to action. These are hard conclusions to hear, especially for those who have lost loved ones.
The Home Secretary has rightly said that agencies and counter-terror police work immensely hard to keep us safe every day. Sir John also says in his report that they have disrupted 27 major Islamist extremist terror plots in recent years, in addition to five right-wing and left-wing terror plots. That is a result of their immense efforts night and day. It is because they are dedicated to keeping us safe that they also recognise the importance of facing up to things going wrong, and they too have expressed their profound sorrow and apologies.
Sir John has rightly made recommendations, and everyone is rightly seeking to take them forward. We should support them in doing so, but I want to press the Home Secretary on some of the details of those measures. First, all of us support the work of Figen Murray and many of the Manchester survivors to introduce Martyn’s law, but can the right hon. Lady tell me the timetable? Will the Bill have its Second Reading before the summer recess? On the closed recommendations, which are clearly important, will the entire report be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it can oversee the changes that need to be made?
On the issues around prisons and the Prevent programme, the bomber repeatedly visited someone who was in prison for terrorist offences, but that did not trigger a further assessment despite some of the wider things that were known about the bomber and his family. That raises serious concerns. Will the Home Secretary look again at the process for monitoring prison visits, and will she accept Sir John’s recommendations about the changes in approach to visits to terrorist and extremist prisoners that need to be taken and also his recommendations on changes to the law?
Sir John also concludes that it is highly likely that the bombers used a video online to help them to make the device in 2016. It is appalling that that video was not taken down. It is also troubling that, seven years on, we do not have the Online Safety Bill on the statute. This also raises concerns about the lack of a proper strategy on online radicalisation. Can I urge the Home Secretary to urgently revise the countering extremism strategy, which is now eight years out of date despite her predecessors having received recommendations from the countering extremism commissioner in 2018 that it was already out of date then? Will she urgently revise it to address online radicalisation?
Sir John also warns about a potential indicator of extremism being violent misogyny in this case. There are patterns here affecting different kinds of extremism—Islamist extremism, far right extremism and incel extremism —so will the Home Secretary commission a review to look at what role violent misogyny may be playing and how far it should be understood as a potential indicator of extremism and radicalisation? Sir John also raises workforce pressures, particularly in the north-west. Given the new threats from hostile states, can the Home Secretary comment on what her assessment is of resources?
Finally, concerns were raised that the security services did not understand the threats from Libya sufficiently, and that that was a wake-up call. Does the Home Secretary recognise that that shows the importance for them to continually reassess different threats and not to have a hierarchy of threats or extremism but to pursue the evidence wherever it takes them? The Home Secretary mentioned the survivors, and we think of them. However, many of them still feel that they lack the support and help they need, even many years after the truly terrible things that happened. Will she meet Survivors Against Terror and look again at what further support can be provided for those who lost loved ones and those who were hurt in that terrible event?

Mhairi Black: The awful events on 22 May 2017 led to the deaths of 22 innocent people and to hundreds more being injured and affected for the rest of their lives. Of course, the ultimate responsibility lies with the bomber who detonated his homemade device in the foyer of Manchester Arena as the crowds left an Ariana Grande concert. I welcome the fact that MI5 has reflected and apologised for its role in failing to prevent this heinous attack. For example, the report finds that intelligence could have led to the bomber being followed to a car where he stored his explosives. The inquiry also found that two pieces of information about the bomber were assessed by the Security Service as not being terrorism-related. An officer also admitted that they considered a possible national security concern on one of those pieces of information, but did not immediately discuss it with colleagues and did not write up a report on the same day.
May I first ask the Home Secretary what steps she is taking to ensure that the security services improve in their communications and information sharing, guaranteeing that professional standards do not fall short, as they have done in this case? Secondly, the inquiry has found that the bomber was probably assisted by someone in Libya, but because of gaps in available evidence, that line of inquiry has not been addressed sufficiently. Can the Home Secretary provide further information on whether the investigation will continue to search for those who assisted the bomber? Given how much frustration the victims’ families are experiencing, understandably, as a result of information being withheld due to national security implications, will the Home Secretary at least provide reassurance to those families that the UK Government will leave no stone unturned in finding justice for their relatives?

Suella Braverman: As the inquiry’s report makes clear, the responsibility for the events of 22 May 2017 lie with the bomber and his brother. Responsibility rests with them. When it comes to whether lives could have been saved, the Government are of course incredibly sorry—I understand that sorry is a weak word for the people directly affected, and our thoughts remain with them—but Sir John Saunders is also clear in his conclusion:
“It remains quite impossible to say whether any different or additional action taken by the authorities could have prevented the Attack. It might have done; it might not have done.”
He also says that it is
“very hard to say what would have happened”
if the bomber
“had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”
It is difficult to make those clear, direct causal connections. However, as I have said before, he does not shy away from saying that there was a significant oversight and there were failings in the process. There are no words that will provide solace to the families affected, but I hope that they can gain confidence from knowing that huge seriousness is attached to this report and we are doing everything in our power to make sure that the lessons learned will be applied in the real world.

Julian Lewis: How closely is the Department for Education working with the Department of Health and Social Care? In Westminster Hall on 6 February, as my hon. Friend may be aware, there was a very constructive debate about ADHD at which it emerged that a bottleneck is being caused by a lack of psychiatrists to make the initial diagnosis. Will she say a little more about the resources that may be made available on the health side for her educational project?

David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Starting early in 2020, the Government spent more than £1.5 million on opinion polls on public attitudes to covid. I feared at the time that opinion polling as much as science was driving the creation of policy, and recent reportage about wanting to “frighten the pants off everyone” leads me to conclude that I was correct in that belief.
On 28 July 2020, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office seeking the results of the polling. It was refused on the ground that it was policy advice. That failed, so it was then refused on grounds of cost. I pressed the matter for 18 months, but was unable to get the Government to publish the taxpayer-funded data. In September 2021, I tried to obtain the information through written parliamentary questions, but on each occasion the Government refused to release the data. I kept pressing, and eventually, in April last year, I was told that a timetable for releasing the information would be available in the spring. That deadline came and went, so I tried again in September, when I was told that the data would be published by the end of the year. Now, three months into 2023, I have still not seen it. About an hour ago, a journalist was told by the Cabinet Office that it had been made available to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, whose Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is present; but I have not seen it.
Public money was used to obtain polling information relating to some of the biggest policy decisions in a generation. It must be made easily accessible and comprehensible to the public. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the House can make the Government give it the data on the basis of which it appears to have created policy throughout the pandemic?

Wendy Chamberlain: I beg to move amendment 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “30 April” and insert “1 April”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 5, page 2, line 14, leave out “31 October” and insert “1 April”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 16, leave out “29 February 2024” and insert “1 April 2023”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out “one month” and insert “two months”.
This amendment would extend the assessment period for recipients of universal credit, allowing them to receive the additional payments under this Bill if they had been entitled to a universal credit payment of at least 1p in the two months prior to the qualifying day for each additional payment.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert
“or—
(ii) the person would have been entitled to a payment of at least 1p in respect of that period if the person had not been subject to a benefit sanction.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that, in respect of universal credit, payments under this Bill are not denied to a person who is subject to a benefit sanction.
Clauses 2 to 12 stand part
New clause 1—Assessment of bringing forward the second qualifying day—
“The Treasury must publish, no later than six weeks after the day in which this Act is passed, an illustrative analysis of the impact of this Act on household incomes if —
(a) the second qualifying date was no later than 15 August 2023, and
(b) the third qualifying date was no later than 3 January 2024.”
The intention of this new clause is to explore the impact of bringing qualifying dates forward to the beginning of the school year in Scotland and the beginning of the New Year.
New clause 2—Assessment of cost of living support package—
“(1) The Treasury must publish, no later than the next fiscal event after the day on which this Act is passed, a full and detailed analysis of the impact of this Act on households.
(2) The Treasury may include in the analysis the effect of support for households announced in October 2022 in response to energy price rises.
(3) The analysis must include an estimate, based on the latest available reliable data, of the impact on household incomes of —
(a) payments made under this Act to households on mean-tested benefits,
(b) payments made under this Act to recipients of disability benefits.
(4) The analysis must show impacts across all deciles of household income distribution—
(a) in cash terms, and
(b) as proportion of net household income.
(5) The analysis must take into account where relevant differing policy contexts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
(6) The analysis must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on households of different types, including single parent families, larger families, and pensioner households.”
New clause 3—Review of distributional effects—
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers; and
(d) households in each income decile
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 7—Review of public health and poverty effects of the Act—
(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider —
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socio-economic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of the Act.
New clause 8—Review of distributional effects—
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers;
(d) households including at least one disabled person; and
(e) households in each income decile,
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the effects of the Bill on different socioeconomic groups.
New clause 13—Payment date—
“The Secretary of State and HMRC must seek to make all payments due under this Act no later than 1 April 2023.”
This new clause is intended to require the Government to make all payments listed in this Bill by 1 April 2023.
New clause 14—Review of coverage of self-employed workers—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed an assessment of how many recipients of payments under this Act live in households where at least one earner is a self-employed worker.”
This new clause is intended to highlight that the variable income of self-employed workers may leave them excluded from receiving the Government’s cost of living payments.

Wendy Chamberlain: It is a pleasure to move amendment 4 on behalf of my party.
Additional support for struggling families is much welcomed, and I am pretty sure that no one in the Committee would oppose the provision of more help through the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is ensure that those struggling families receive that support now, rather than having to wait. It has been a long cold winter, and we are expecting another cold snap this week, so it certainly is not over yet.
While the energy price guarantee has protected families from the worst increases, some households have seen their bills increase two, three or possibly even four times in the past year. We know from the scandal of the forced instalment of prepayment meters that many people have been unable to keep up with those bills, and that for many of them the debts continue to mount up. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others are walking a tightrope—just managing payments, sometimes late, by making other cutbacks: being cold, eating less, or reducing travel. If we are not just to get those families back on an even keel but to help them to stay there, it is vital for the full cost of living payment that the Government wish to make to be made immediately—especially, I would argue, in the face of the impending increase in the energy price guarantee. We have all seen reports in the media over the last few days that the Government may well choose to extend that guarantee. I am sure you might have some thoughts, Dame Rosie, on whether that announcement ought to be made here before being briefed to the press. We cannot fully assess the impact of this Bill, given that we do not know for definite what is happening with the energy price guarantee, so we are left to make assumptions accordingly.
In any case, whether the guarantee lasts for another month or as, my party wants, for more months than that along with a reduction in the energy price guarantee to the Ofgem cap of £1,971 last April, cost of living support payments must be made now to have any impact. We are seeing a reduction in wholesale gas costs, which is why we argue that the Government can do more than they are outlining because they have the headroom to do so. What is the point in people paying some or even all of their bills, only to start struggling all over again? For people to get all the other benefits of affording the basics—being warm enough and fed enough to work, go to school and stay healthy—support needs to be geared to preventing them from falling below that line in the first place.
Moving on from my amendment 4 to the remainder of the Bill, I am left wondering if this really is it. You do not need to be a politician to know that this country is in crisis, although if you are a politician and have a modicum of responsibility or power, it is critical that you realise the severity of the situation. Just turning on the TV, opening a newspaper, speaking to parents at the school gate or spending any time out and about in our communities makes it very clear what is happening.
The difficulties felt by different communities vary, and that is what the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 8, and to some extent new clause 3, seek to address. For a lot of my constituents living in relatively rural North East Fife, the crisis is exacerbated by their countryside location, without easy access to local services and battling against unrelenting fuel costs. What I hear from them time and again is that they feel they are being let down. Farmers, for example, work long days seven days a week, without let-up and never taking a holiday, to provide the rest of us with the food that goes on our plates, but they are being left with next to no support for their fuel costs, no protection against foreign imports and no ability to plan for the future under the Government’s funding streams.
As has been mentioned many times in this House, many rural households rely on heating oil. I have discussed the price guarantee already, but heating oil is not even covered by that. Costs have almost doubled, yet those households have received just one £200 payment—that is if they have managed to receive it at all. We know that the system has been beset by practical difficulties. We have also seen the continued delays in the roll-out of the alternative fuel payment scheme. Applications are now open, but despite reassurances there has been no support for many until now. And when the shop—or too often now, the food bank—is not just around the corner for those in rural communities, they need to travel just for the basics. They cannot avoid getting into the car and paying for petrol, and although petrol and diesel prices have gone up everywhere this year, we always see much faster increases in rural areas.
Those in rural households are not the only group to suffer because of rising energy costs and fuel poverty. As has been discussed in this place before, disabled people have much higher living costs. I recently met representatives of Disability Rights UK, one of the organisations leading the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, as well as representatives from the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, and their message was clear: the additional £150 payment for people on disability benefits is so lacklustre as to be grotesquely offensive. It shows that the Government are taking no interest in, and making no effort to understand, the reality of the lives and expenses of disabled people.
Disabled people are not all the same: they have a wide variety of unique needs, which I cannot cover here, but I shall give just a few examples. Imagine someone needing a hoist to safely manoeuvre between their bed and their wheelchair, but being unable to charge that hoist and having to watch their family risk their own health by lifting them unsafely. Or perhaps think about someone being unable to charge their electric wheelchair and becoming unable to mobilise even around their home to get to the toilet or to fetch a cup of tea.
Perhaps someone’s partner has a spinal injury and is incontinent, but they cannot afford to run their washing machine every day or to properly heat their water, so they find themselves washing dirty clothes by hand in lukewarm water. Perhaps someone’s child has cystic fibrosis and needs a nutritious high-calorie diet, but with 10% inflation—we know it is worse for food inflation —and shortages, they themselves are having to skip meals to let their child eat instead. It should not take a donation from an international celebrity to reassure  families of the disabled that they can keep their homes warm and essential equipment functioning. There are many ways in which disabled people incur additional costs, all of which are incredibly important and all of which demand support additional to what the Government are offering in this Bill.
Unpaid carers, on the other hand, are not even explicitly considered in this package of support. I will not labour the point, as I have said all this before, but not all unpaid carers receive means-tested benefits, and given that the vast majority of them live on or close to the poverty line, they are also badly in need of cost of living support. I would like to say that they are unsung heroes, but I have been singing their praises and calling for more support since the start of the crisis and I am starting to think that the Government do not want to hear it.
Dame Eleanor, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will welcome you back.
Overall, my concern about the Bill, as we consider it clause by clause, is that it is just a sticking plaster that will not truly keep our communities afloat during this crisis. Fuel poverty is widening and deepening; meanwhile, energy companies continue to rake in record profits. The Government must make suppliers act responsibly towards consumers. I acknowledge that it is not just the political response that is causing trouble for my constituents, as an astounding number of them have come to me with problems including being charged incorrectly, often more than they should be, and sometimes by companies that they are not even with. Electricity is a vital service, so surely this type of predatory behaviour cannot be allowed.
Food poverty continues to soar. As early as last April to September, before the worst of this crisis and before winter took hold, the Trussell Trust reported its busiest ever spring and summer, with a 45% increase in the number of families needing its support. The figures will only have gone up since then, and I am not convinced that this package will help, especially with the payments spread out so far. We know that when the £20 universal credit uplift was in place during covid, food bank use went down. How we stop families going hungry or relying on food packages is a vital conversation, and one that needs more time for discussion, so I encourage all Members present to come to the report launch of the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks on 22 March to hear more on the outcome of our “Cash or Food?” inquiry.
In the long term, to end the need for additional cost of living payments we need economic growth, we need more people able to work and we need a healthier society. Poverty is the enemy of all those things. Poverty breeds worse health outcomes, it makes people cold and hungry and it drives away hope and drive. That is nobody’s fault except those who choose to look away and do nothing, and that is why we need the Government to review reinstating the uplift to universal credit and extending it to legacy benefits. It is why carer’s allowance needs reforming, and it is why we need all the cost of living payments at once, now, as a circuit breaker.
I want to end by reflecting on the words of one of my constituents who got in touch with me over the winter. He is a 79-year-old gentleman who struggles to heat his home and who has a mixture of health difficulties. He said:
“Maybe it would be better if I wasn’t alive, for everyone else’s benefit.”
He cannot wait for April to October and then again for months for additional support, so with him in mind, I urge Members to support amendment 4.

Mims Davies: It is a pleasure to see you chairing the Committee this afternoon, Dame Eleanor.
I thank hon. Members for the useful debate on Second Reading and I welcome this opportunity for a more detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. Clause 1 enables the Government to make three separate cost of living payments of £301, £300 and £299 to individuals or couples with a qualifying entitlement to an income-related social security benefit or tax credit. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). We have looked in the round at what we have done before, and I want to set out strongly to the Committee that we have worked very hard, whether on the household support fund or on this Bill, to support the most vulnerable through the really tough times that she described. I hope to give the Committee answers that will show that.
To be clear, the clause sets out that the qualifying days for each of the cost of living payments will be specified in secondary regulations, which will help to minimise work disincentives and fraud risks. In response to amendments 4, 5 and 6, it might be helpful if I clarify for the hon. Lady that the dates set out in clause 1 are backstop dates, meaning the latest possible qualification dates that could be set out in regulations. Bringing those dates forward could not achieve the amendment’s desired effect, although I understand the sentiment.
In any event, making all cost of living payments by 1 April 2023 would not support our ambition to spread the support through 2023 and into 2024. In fact, we have increased the number of payments from those made in 2022, having listened and engaged with the feedback from MPs across the land. This ensures that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point, including those who become entitled to a qualifying benefit later in the year and those whose earnings fluctuate from month to month. Making all the payments in one lump sum would mean that more people miss out.
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I must be robust in saying that we simply cannot do what she suggests, as it runs contrary to what we should be doing in spreading out support for the most vulnerable. It is also the total opposite of the Select Committee’s request for more payments. I hope she understands that and will withdraw her amendment.

David Linden: It is not often that I find myself pleased in this place, but may I say how genuinely pleased I am to see you back in your place, Dame Eleanor? It is just right to see you in that place, so it is great to see you back.
I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am also happy to offer support for the amendments tabled by members of the Select committee, namely the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), as well as for new clause 7, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I also support new clause 12, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but not selected.
The House will recall that when I spoke on Second Reading, I stated my party’s support of the broad thrust of what the Bill seeks to achieve but was clear that it fails to address some of the wider issues impacting our social security system, which have only been highlighted further by the cost of living crisis. It is important to remind ourselves that these amendments, and in fact this entire Bill, are the product of the continuing cost of living crisis, which remains the single biggest priority for my east end constituents. We cannot forget that all of this comes against a backdrop of households continuing to face extremely challenging economic conditions. As such, there should be no doubt that my party welcomes the support laid out in this Bill, but we think that it does not go far enough to meet the needs of the poorest households struggling with the cost of living crisis. We have therefore tabled these amendments, in good faith, to try to make the Bill better.
The one-off cost of living payments in this Bill, as set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, are only a temporary fix, when it is clear that more permanent solutions are needed. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the British Government should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting the most vulnerable in our communities. They should be ending benefit sanctions, ending the benefit cap, ending unfair assessments, ending the rape clause, ending the five-week wait, ending no recourse to public funds. That list sometimes feels endless, but it is not, and the social security system is fixable if we have the political will. The amendments we have tabled today show that and highlight just some of the ways in which the British Government can point the social security system towards the people who actually use it and ensure they have adequate support, perhaps taking a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book.
My amendment 2 ensures that universal credit claimants who have been sanctioned are not denied the vital cost of living payments. As the Bill currently stands, to qualify for the cost of living payment, claimants must be entitled to at least 1p in the month preceding the date specified by the Secretary of State in clause 2. However, if a claimant is sanctioned, their full entitlement could be taken away for a period of time. Many of those who have a sanction imposed will receive a nil award, which means that they do not receive the payment despite having an underlying entitlement to universal credit for that period. I have heard of cases where claimants have missed the bus or had to drop their children off at school, which has resulted, I am afraid, in their being late or missing an appointment at the jobcentre. That in turn has led to their being sanctioned and losing their universal credit for a number of weeks.
It is increasingly concerning when Government Members suggest widening further the scope for minor sanctions, such as the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities who, last week, suggested that parents should face cuts to their benefits for their children’s truancy. Quite what he was thinking about with that policy I do not know. The “minor failings” that currently exist account for 97.6% of all sanctions in the latest quarter, according to the Department’s own data. Being five minutes late to an interview could lead to a claimant being punished twice: first, with the sanction and the loss of their benefits, and, secondly, with the possibility that they miss out on the cost of living payments.
I appreciate that hon. Members across the Chamber have different views to me and my party when it comes to sanctions and conditionality, but surely Government Members can see that it is vastly unfair to claimants to deny them the lifeline of a cost of living payment for a mistake as minor as being late to an interview at the jobcentre. The brutal economic conditions that people face right now take no cognisance of sanctions policy.
In response to a recent written answer, the Department revealed that it estimated that some 6,600 households missed out on the cost of living payment due to a sanction in July last year. These are people who are incredibly vulnerable at the best of times, and even more so during a cost of living crisis. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government to bring forward legislation that actively seeks to punish them twice. The DWP’s only explanation for the exclusion of more than 6,000 vulnerable households was that the
“unsophisticated character of the payment system made inclusion impossible.”
Dame Eleanor, I have to agree with the Public Law Project that administrative difficulty is not a sufficient reason for excluding vulnerable people from this lifeline support.
The British Government have had a year to fix the problem, yet nothing, as far as I can see, has been done. Sanction rates have risen sharply since the pandemic began in 2020 from 2.5% to almost 7% in record new levels. To prevent the increased number of sanctioned claimants being punished twice, amendment 2 simply seeks to ensure that payments under the Bill are not denied to a person who is subject to a benefit sanction. I do not see what is controversial there, and hope that the House can agree to it when I choose to divide the House later.
New clause 1 explores the impact of bringing qualifying dates forward to the beginning of the school year in Scotland and the beginning of the new year. The Bill as it stands states that the second qualifying day will be no later than 31 October 2023, and the third qualifying day will be no later than 29 February 2024, as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. For many benefit claimants, their lives are marred by uncertainty. It would make a huge difference if the DWP were able to provide clarity about the dates on which the payments will be made and their qualifying period, which would allow claimants to plan accordingly. Although we will not press the amendment to a vote, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide such clarity.
New clauses 2 and 3 address distributional analysis and impact assessment. In essence, they would require the British Government to assess the effect of the  payments made under this Bill to households. The DWP has produced an impact assessment for the Bill and the Treasury has published a distributional analysis in the autumn statement. However, neither of these fully consider distribution and household comparison. New clause 2 would ensure that the British Government also include in their analysis households of different types, including single parent families, larger families, and pensioner households.
Likewise, new clause 3 would look at various socio-economic groups, including: rural communities, such as those represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry); families eligible for free school meals; unpaid carers; and households in each income decile. I am not minded to press new clauses 2 and 3 to a vote, but I encourage the Minister to consider the benefits of richer data and fuller assessments on household composition and particular groups. In that context, I and a number of cross-party colleagues are somewhat concerned about the lack of publication of data from the DWP. Certainly, we are finding it very difficult to reach that information. Similarly, under new clause 4, the Secretary of State would be required to assess the effects on household incomes, and especially on food and fuel poverty—a massive issue in rural Scotland—of reintroducing the universal credit uplift and increasing it to £25 per week.
Alongside colleagues from across the House, I have campaigned hard to retain the £20 uplift to universal credit. Indeed, we asked for it to be extended to legacy benefits. It was a great policy from the British Government, which was warmly welcomed, including by my party. It is no coincidence that we saw food bank usage reduce as the uplift was in place. Likewise, it was no coincidence that food bank usage increased as the uplift was taken away.

Mims Davies: I thank my hon. Friend and agree that it is right that we raise the situation of that sector. He has made his point and we have heard from other Members across the House about the same scenarios.
New clause 13 tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife requires us to make all payments under this Act by 1 April. As I previously stated, we have deliberately staggered payments over the course of the next year to ensure that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
I think I have made all my points.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 281.
Question accordingly negatived.
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 21 February).
The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15 June 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 31 October 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

That the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023, which were laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.

Kenny MacAskill: A just transition was proclaimed when COP26 was held in Glasgow in 2021. While that global jamboree may have underwhelmed in so many respects, it was at the forefront in one aspect, for as we transition from fossil fuels to renewables, not just countries but businesses, communities and workers were to be supported. Entire industries require to be run down or forsaken and decent jobs given up, even lifelong careers; however, financial support was to be given to assist nations in that journey. As for workers, assurances were made that in the transition to net zero, they would be protected and long-held rights would be assured—justice for workers, as well as for our planet.
Those assurances were echoed outwith the global gathering, endorsed by the UK Government—they have since been championed by them in the green jobs taskforce—and chorused by the Scottish Government in their just transition commission. The rhetoric has been fairness and equity for those whose work would require to change. In Scotland and in the UK as a whole, the sector most affected is in the North sea. Though extraction of oil and gas is still required, we are on a journey to decarbonise and to transition to renewables; it is a transition, but it must be a just one. That sector has provided huge wealth and benefit to our society, and many who worked hard in those difficult and often dangerous conditions are now moving into renewables. Where once it was oil and gas, it is now becoming wind, wave and tidal—let us not forget that we recently had a Prime Minister who championed the UK as the Saudi Arabia of wind. It is a move that matters for our nations and will create wealth, as well as provide hope for our planet.
However, recent events in the North sea have revealed that while there is a transition in the economy, there is no just transition for those working in that new and growing sector—primarily in the maritime sector, where minimum wage law does not apply consistently and immigration law is used as a crude instrument to profit from seafarer exploitation. That, though, is a debate for another day. Tonight, I want to raise the issue of employment rights, especially the effectiveness of health and safety legislation that is too easily avoided. The lack of consistent and effective offshore safety legislation has been brought to light by a recent tragedy. We must hope that from that sorrow there will come some solace, with the existing legislative gap being remedied.
That legislative gap affects hundreds if not thousands of workers in the offshore energy supply chain, sailing out of not just existing offshore hubs such as Aberdeen or Dundee but Eyemouth, Montrose, Fraserburgh, Wick, Buckie, and other Scottish ports involved in delivering a successful offshore wind industry. It also affects those in England servicing energy installations in the North sea from Humberside, Tyneside, Teesside or East Anglia, along with those who will be embarking from Holyhead, Milford Haven, Mostyn and other ports in Wales. At present, the framework of statutory employment and seafarer rights on which that workforce will depend for their health and safety is not fit for purpose. A just  transition was promised, and a just transition there must be for our maritime and offshore workers, as well as our planet.
Let me detail the tragedy which brought those failures to light. On Sunday 22 January, a man went missing from Valaris 121, a mobile offshore drilling unit being towed to Dundee and located some 98 miles from Aberdeen. Police Scotland investigated and while satisfied that no criminal investigation was required, had concerns regarding wider health and safety issues, which they referred to the Health and Safety Executive. This is something that the HSE would not normally investigate. That it did so here is perhaps indicative of the concerns that the police had raised, for it is not the same as an industrial accident on land. Neither is it similar to that on an oil or gas rig on the UK continental shelf, or even on a fixed or floating wind turbine in the UK exclusive economic zone.
HSE legislation has rightly been extended to cover workers’ rights, but it is incomplete and, as a result, workers are at greater risk. Mobile drilling units such as Valaris 121 are classified as a ship or a vessel when towed, meaning that they fall outwith HSE jurisdiction and within that of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Accordingly, while the HSE could and very likely would have carried out a full investigation had this incident been on land, a rig or even a turbine, it is restricted in what it can do in this instance. Likewise, a report that may have seen a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland or a coroner’s court hearing in England and Wales will not happen. Why is that? It is because it is not classified as a health and safety issue, giving the HSE authority. Instead, it is considered a maritime safety matter, and the MCA has authority and leads these investigations through the marine accident investigation branch.

Mims Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for bringing this important debate to the House, and I appreciate and understand the passion and conviction he brings to this debate. The UK Government take very seriously  health and safety on offshore wind farms in Great Britain’s territorial sea and the UK continental shelf, and I am keen to reassure the hon. Gentleman that my officials at the HSE confirm that we have a strong and appropriate existing regulatory regime, which applies the protection afforded by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to people working on offshore wind farms.
On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, let me spell out that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 applies the provisions of the 1974 Act. This covers certain activities offshore, including work associated with offshore wind farms, as well as other offshore installations such as those for oil and gas. Therefore, the 1974 Act applies to offshore wind farms in the territorial sea and the UK continental shelf as well as to renewable energy zones, which are also defined in the 2013 order. The 2013 order also applies the provisions of the 1974 Act to offshore oil and gas installations in designated areas in the UK continental shelf—I really hope that pacifies the hon. Gentleman. I will say more about that and come on to some of his other points later.
Furthermore, the 1974 Act places a legal duty on employers to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of workers and others to ensure that they are kept safe, whether they are working on oil or gas or, as I said, wind farm installations. In addition, other legislation that applies to work on offshore wind farms includes the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. This helps employers to ensure that their work is planned and that risks are assessed and managed. Those regulations also ensure that employers consult and engage with workers and make sure that information is communicated to all those who need to know it.
The Health and Safety Executive enforces the 1974 Act and subsidiary health and safety legislation on offshore wind farms. The HSE does not have the legal basis to enforce activities that are not specifically covered by the 2013 order. In those situations, however, other regulators and organisations will enforce health and safety legislation or investigate accidents. For example, in a situation where a ship is in transit and the HSE’s regulations do not apply, such a ship will still need to comply with national and international maritime standards.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible for enforcing all merchant shipping regulations in respect of occupational health and safety, the safety of vessels, safe navigation and operation. This includes manning levels and crew competency. Merchant shipping health and safety regulations extend to all those working on the ship and any work activities undertaken on board. These powers of the MCA extend to UK ships anywhere in the world and to non-UK ships that are within UK territorial waters.
The marine accident investigation branch investigates marine accidents involving UK vessels worldwide and all vessels in UK territorial waters. Its role is to help prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring, not to establish blame or liability.
For foreign flagged ships in the UK continental shelf, the responsibility for investigating accidents lies with the flag state. A memorandum of understanding between the HSE, the MCA and the MAIB ensures effective collaborative working. Each organisation has differing  responsibilities for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation. An operational working agreement provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the HSE, the MCA and MAIB overlap. It outlines the key and supporting principles to be adopted when selecting the lead organisation for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation.
The HSE’s energy division has a team of inspectors dedicated to the regulation of work activities at offshore wind farms. They are supported by various onshore and offshore specialists who provide technical advice on a range of relevant subjects during inspection, investigation and enforcement of high-risk activities. This addresses poor health and safety performance and provides reassurance that there is good health and safety management of such activities.

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will make some further points, and I hope we can then come to a mutual arrangement and I can reassure him on the issues he raises. The points he makes can come into the conversation.
I have spelled out that the HSE energy division has inspectors dedicated to the regulation of work activities at offshore wind farms, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that a lot is going on in this sector and there needs to be reassurance. I have spelled out some of the regulatory activity. The HSE works with industry bodies and UK regulators to ensure that sensible solutions are found to emerging risks.
On shipping standards, where the HSE regulations do not apply to work activities on ships because they fall outside the scope of the 1974 Act and the 2013 order, international shipping regulations provide a broadly equivalent level of safety to international shipping. International conventions on shipping, such as the international convention for the safety of life at sea,  the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships and the maritime labour convention 2006 set a level playing field, as all ships are surveyed by their flag and can be inspected by port states against the internationally agreed standards. Under this regime Valaris was inspected by the MCA when it reached port in the UK, but I do appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points on that.
On Valaris 121, the Health and Safety Executive has served an improvement notice on Ensco Offshore U.K. Ltd relating to incorrectly installed gratings on Valaris 121 when it was in port in Dundee.
On the flag state investigations of accidents occurring on the UK continental shelf, the flag state of the ship involved is responsible for ensuring that an investigation  is conducted and completed in accordance with the casualty investigation code. The code mandates that certain incidents set out in chapter 1, part A, of the 1974 international convention for the safety of life at sea—or SOLAS—are investigated.
The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned flags of convenience. Open registries can pose a challenge to maritime security and the enforcement of laws on the high seas. That is because some flag states do not, or cannot, exercise effective oversight of the ships on their registers, as I think the hon. Member pointed out.
While there is some evidence of poor practice taking place under open registries, there is no direct correlation between poor-performing ships and open registries. However, Liberia, the Bahamas and the Marshall Islands are all open registries and were at the top of the 15 countries for low detention rates under the 2021 Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control.
It is an important issue that some flag states do not have independent investigation bodies that may investigate accidents in UKCS. The marine administrations for the Isle of Man, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar do not have independent investigation bodies, and therefore have difficulty in ensuring that safety investigations are impartial and objective. A memorandum of understanding has therefore been reached, which the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch has agreed to, to investigate incidents involving ships registered with those marine administrations. The procedure for those investigations set out in the legislation in force in the relevant marine administration’s territory will apply.
I will cover two other points, then hopefully start to conclude. The hon. Gentleman will be keen to know that the responsibility for regulating the health and safety of workers travelling to and from offshore workplaces—wind farms or oil and gas installations—rests with the MCA within the territorial sea and for UK-flagged vessels.
The responsibility for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation is described in the MOU between HSE, the MCA and the MAIB. That is supported by an operational working agreement that provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the respective agencies overlap.
In terms of those transiting to and from offshore workplaces, the responsibility for regulating those transits rests with the MCA within the territorial sea and for UK-flagged vessels. Again, the responsibility for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation is in the MOU between HSE, the MCA and the MAIB. Again, that is supported by an operational working agreement that provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the respective agencies overlap. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Does he want to come in on that?